The NCLAT dismissed two delay-condonation applications filed by home-buyers seeking to appeal an NCLT order, holding that the statutory ceiling of a 15-day extension beyond the prescribed 30-day limitation cannot be exceeded. The decision underscores the strict procedural timetable imposed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and clarifies that reliance on order-upload dates or lack of certified copies will not extend the limitation period.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellants, Rajiv Ranjan Sharma & Anr. and Kiran Hariraj Vishwakarma & Anr., are individual home-buyers who filed appeals against an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, dated 18 November 2025. The order pertained to insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The appellants sought to condone a delay of 40-45 days in filing their appeals.
Key Facts
- 18 Nov 2025: Impugned NCLT order pronounced in open court.
- 09 Dec 2025: Same order uploaded on the NCLT portal.
- 08 Dec 2025 - 02 Jan 2026: Office of the appellants' counsel closed.
- 23 Jan 2026: Statutory limitation of 45 days (30 days + 15 days) expired.
- 03 Feb 2026: Appeals e-filed, reflecting a delay of 45 days beyond the 30-day period.
- The appellants argued the delay was unintentional, caused by non-communication of the order, office closure, and public holidays in the last week of January 2026.
Procedural History
- 18 Nov 2025: NCLT (Mumbai Bench) passed the order in IA No. 3892/2025 and IA No. 3893/2025.
- 09 Dec 2025: Order uploaded on NCLT website.
- 03 Feb 2026: Delay-condonation applications IA No. 5636/2026 (for CA (AT) No. 1458/2026) and IA No. 5639/2026 (for CA (AT) No. 1459/2026) filed.
- 02 Sep 2026: NCLAT delivered the present order, dismissing the condonation applications and the appeals.
Parties' Positions
- Appellants: Contended that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate; it resulted from the order not being communicated promptly, the counsel’s office closure, and subsequent public holidays. They sought condonation of the 40-45-day delay.
- Respondents: No respondents appeared; the tribunal relied solely on statutory provisions and precedent.
Relief Sought
The appellants prayed for condonation of the 40-45-day delay in filing their appeals and for the appeals to be entertained despite the lapse.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an appeal against an NCLT order under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 can be entertained when the filing occurs 45 days after the order - i.e., beyond the 30-day limitation and the statutorily permissible 15-day extension.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
- The delay was caused by factors beyond their control: non-communication of the order, counsel’s office closure (08 Dec 2025 - 02 Jan 2026), and public holidays.
- Relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sanjay Pandurang Kalate v. Vistara ITCL (India) Ltd. (2023) that the date of upload could be considered when the order had not been pronounced.
- Submitted that the procedural rule in Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules could be waived in the interest of substantial justice.
For the Respondent
- No respondent appeared; the tribunal applied the plain language of Section 61(2), which caps the condonable period at fifteen days beyond the thirty-day limitation.
- Cited V Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat (2021) and Kalpraj Dharamshi v. Kotak Investment Advisors (2021) to emphasize that the limitation period commences from the date of pronouncement and that the statutory ceiling is non-negotiable.
- Highlighted that the appellants failed to apply for a certified copy of the order within the limitation period, a requirement under Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal began by interpreting Section 61(2) of the IBC, which provides a thirty-day limitation for filing an appeal and, subject to sufficient cause, permits an extension of not more than fifteen days. The proviso is mandatory and cannot be stretched beyond fifteen days.
"The proviso to Section 61(2) provides that NLCAT may allow an appeal to be filed beyond a period of thirty days by a maximum of fifteen days on the demonstration of sufficient cause for the delay."
The Court examined the pronouncement versus upload distinction. It held that, unlike the scenario in Kalate, the impugned order was pronounced in open court on 18 Nov 2025, as evidenced by the registry’s report. Consequently, the limitation period began on 19 Nov 2025, not on the later upload date of 09 Dec 2025. This aligns with V Nagarajan, which states that the limitation starts from the day of pronouncement.
The Tribunal then applied Rule 3 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 and Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963, confirming that the day of pronouncement is excluded from the computation, but the subsequent thirty-day period is mandatory. The appellants’ failure to obtain a certified copy within this window meant they could not invoke the exclusion provision for the time taken to receive the copy.
Reference was made to Sanket Kumar Agarwal v. APG Logistics (2023), reinforcing that the limitation runs from the date of filing the appeal, not from the receipt of a physical copy, and that the exclusion of the “time requisite for obtaining a certified copy” applies only when an application for such a copy is made within the limitation period.
The Court further cited Tata Steel Ltd. v. Raj Kumar Banerjee (2025) and Kalpraj Dharamshi (2021) to underscore that the NCLAT possesses no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the combined thirty-plus-fifteen-day period, irrespective of the reasons asserted.
Having examined the statutory scheme, the precedents, and the factual timeline, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants’ delay of 45 days exceeded the permissible window. The statutory ceiling of fifteen days could not be stretched, and the appellants had not demonstrated “sufficient cause” within the meaning of the proviso.
"Thus, the above applications moved by the appellant to condone the delay of 45 days appears to be not maintainable and are dismissed as such."
Accordingly, the condonation applications were dismissed, and the appeals were rejected as time-barred.
The Verdict
The NCLAT dismissed both delay-condonation applications and consequently rejected the appeals. The Tribunal held that the appeal filed on 3 February 2026, delayed 45 days beyond the statutory 30-day period, could not be condoned because the maximum permissible extension under Section 61(2) is 15 days. No monetary or other relief was granted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Statutory Limitation Is Strictly Enforced
- Appeals under Section 61(2) IBC must be filed within 30 days of pronouncement.
- The only permissible extension is 15 days on a showing of sufficient cause; the tribunal cannot exceed this ceiling.
- Reliance on the date of order upload or on the absence of a certified copy will not extend the limitation period.
Pronouncement Date Controls the Clock
- The limitation period starts from the day the order is pronounced in open court, not from the date it is uploaded on the portal.
- Parties must obtain a certified copy promptly; failure to do so forfeits the exclusion benefit under Section 12 Limitation Act.
Certified Copy Remains Mandatory
- An application for a certified copy must be filed within the limitation period; otherwise, the time taken by the tribunal to prepare the copy cannot be excluded.
- Even where the tribunal may waive procedural rules under Rule 14 NCLAT Rules, the statutory ceiling of fifteen days remains non-negotiable.
Practitioners should therefore:
- Verify the pronouncement date of the impugned order.
- File the appeal within 30 days and, if necessary, seek condonation within the 15-day window.
- Apply for a certified copy immediately after pronouncement to preserve the exclusion right.
